IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JAMES FREEMAN-NEELEY, : Petitioner, : : v. : No. 25-cv-1088 : WARDEN JEFFERY SMITH, : Respondent. :

O R D E R On February 28, 2025, pro se Petitioner James Freeman-Neeley sought habeas relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and violations of procedural due process, the Eighth Amendment, and his right to a speedy trial under Pennsylvania law.

. (Doc. No. 1.) On March 7, 2025, I referred his Petition to Magistrate Judge Wells for a Report and Recommendation. (Doc. No. 4.) On September 30, 2025, Judge Wells recommended that I deny and dismiss the Petition because his ineffectiveness, due process, and Eight Amendment claims are not exhausted, and his speedy trial claim is not cognizable. (Doc. No. 41.) No objections to the Report and Recommendation have been made. (See Docket.) Accordingly, I must “satisfy [myself] that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) Advisory Committee Notes; see also Henderson v. Carlson,

, 878 (3d Cir. 1987) (the district court must “afford some level of review” when no objections have been made). Having reviewed the Report, I see no clear errors, and I agree with Judge Wells’ Recommendation. * * * AND NOW, this 31st day of October, 2025, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. The Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. No. 1) is DENIED without an evidentiary hearing; 2. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 41) is APPROVED AND ADOPTED; and

3. A certificate of appealability will not issue. AND IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ Paul S. Diamond _________________________ PAUL S. DIAMOND, J.